A model that adopts human fixations explains individual differences in multiple object tracking

In many settings “keep your eye on the ball” is good advice. People fixate important objects to obtain high quality information. Perhaps equally often, however, we engage with multiple important, moving, and unpredictable objects. Where should we fixate in these situations, and where do we? Do we fo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cognition 2020-12, Vol.205, p.104418-104418, Article 104418
Hauptverfasser: Upadhyayula, Aditya, Flombaum, Jonathan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 104418
container_issue
container_start_page 104418
container_title Cognition
container_volume 205
creator Upadhyayula, Aditya
Flombaum, Jonathan
description In many settings “keep your eye on the ball” is good advice. People fixate important objects to obtain high quality information. Perhaps equally often, however, we engage with multiple important, moving, and unpredictable objects. Where should we fixate in these situations, and where do we? Do we for example appropriately center fixations to manage spatial non-uniformity in our visual system? And do we fixate empty space strategically to gain as much information as possible about multiple objects of interest? We explored these issues in the context of Multiple Object Tracking (MOT), wherein observers track several moving objects (targets) within a larger set of moving objects (nontargets), all the objects physically indistinguishable from one another. Among the features that make MOT an interesting paradigm is that it cannot be accommodated by continuous gaze to one important object, because there are multiple such objects in a given trial. Instead, it demands sustained processing of inputs from an entire display and iterated inferences about target versus nontarget identities. MOT therefore demands a strategic interaction between eye movements and cognition: the observer should seek fixation locations that minimize the aggregate probability of confusing any target with any nontarget. Individuals who meet this fixation challenge should perform the task better than those who meet the challenge less effectively. Here we describe a probabilistic model that implements the basic computations needed to do MOT, estimating the positions of targets, predicting their future positions, and inferring correspondences between new inputs and represented targets. The quality of the input received by the model depends on its fixation location at a given moment. We simulated a group of fifty participants who all performed the same MOT trials, with the model adopting each observer's fixation locations in the respective simulations. The model reliably predicted individual participant tracking performances and their relative rankings within the cohort. The results suggest that an individual's relative capability in this cognitively demanding task is in part determined by his/her utilization of eye fixations to control the quality and relevance of incoming visual input. [Display omitted]
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104418
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2437127480</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0010027720302377</els_id><sourcerecordid>2437127480</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3638-7026a19dbbe2db22454fb50d46fd700f711a9f8a1b9e8b5ad1c400f66c77ea373</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1u1TAQhS1U1N6WvgJY6oZNLv5L7CyvKqCVKrGBteXY49YhiYOdVO3b43BLF2xY2Tr65szoHIQ-ULKnhDaf-r2N91NYQpz2jLBNFYKqN2hHleSVVFydoB0hlFSESXmGznPuCSGCSXWKzjgrQFvLHdIHPEYHA14ezIKNi_OS8cM6mgn78GS2BRnD0zyYUD5hcuExuNUM2AXvIcFkYZPxuA5LmAfAsevBLnhJxv4M0_079NabIcPly3uBfnz5_P36prr79vX2-nBXWd5wVUnCGkNb13XAXMeYqIXvauJE450kxEtKTeuVoV0LqquNo1YUuWmslGC45Bfo49F3TvHXCnnRY8gWhsFMENesmeCSMikUKejVP2gf1zSV6wrVclW3zR9DeaRsijkn8HpOYTTpWVOitw50r1870FsH-thBmXz_4r92I7jXub-hF-BwBKAE8hgg6WzDlqQLqWSnXQz_XfIblwKc1g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2493859637</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A model that adopts human fixations explains individual differences in multiple object tracking</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Upadhyayula, Aditya ; Flombaum, Jonathan</creator><creatorcontrib>Upadhyayula, Aditya ; Flombaum, Jonathan</creatorcontrib><description>In many settings “keep your eye on the ball” is good advice. People fixate important objects to obtain high quality information. Perhaps equally often, however, we engage with multiple important, moving, and unpredictable objects. Where should we fixate in these situations, and where do we? Do we for example appropriately center fixations to manage spatial non-uniformity in our visual system? And do we fixate empty space strategically to gain as much information as possible about multiple objects of interest? We explored these issues in the context of Multiple Object Tracking (MOT), wherein observers track several moving objects (targets) within a larger set of moving objects (nontargets), all the objects physically indistinguishable from one another. Among the features that make MOT an interesting paradigm is that it cannot be accommodated by continuous gaze to one important object, because there are multiple such objects in a given trial. Instead, it demands sustained processing of inputs from an entire display and iterated inferences about target versus nontarget identities. MOT therefore demands a strategic interaction between eye movements and cognition: the observer should seek fixation locations that minimize the aggregate probability of confusing any target with any nontarget. Individuals who meet this fixation challenge should perform the task better than those who meet the challenge less effectively. Here we describe a probabilistic model that implements the basic computations needed to do MOT, estimating the positions of targets, predicting their future positions, and inferring correspondences between new inputs and represented targets. The quality of the input received by the model depends on its fixation location at a given moment. We simulated a group of fifty participants who all performed the same MOT trials, with the model adopting each observer's fixation locations in the respective simulations. The model reliably predicted individual participant tracking performances and their relative rankings within the cohort. The results suggest that an individual's relative capability in this cognitively demanding task is in part determined by his/her utilization of eye fixations to control the quality and relevance of incoming visual input. [Display omitted]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-0277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-7838</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104418</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32838957</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Balls ; Cognition ; Computational modelling ; Eye ; Eye fixation ; Eye movements ; Eye tracking ; Fixation ; Individual differences ; Kalman filter ; Moving objects ; Multiple object tracking ; Tracking ; Visual system</subject><ispartof>Cognition, 2020-12, Vol.205, p.104418-104418, Article 104418</ispartof><rights>2020 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Dec 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3638-7026a19dbbe2db22454fb50d46fd700f711a9f8a1b9e8b5ad1c400f66c77ea373</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3638-7026a19dbbe2db22454fb50d46fd700f711a9f8a1b9e8b5ad1c400f66c77ea373</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4999-4037</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104418$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32838957$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Upadhyayula, Aditya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Flombaum, Jonathan</creatorcontrib><title>A model that adopts human fixations explains individual differences in multiple object tracking</title><title>Cognition</title><addtitle>Cognition</addtitle><description>In many settings “keep your eye on the ball” is good advice. People fixate important objects to obtain high quality information. Perhaps equally often, however, we engage with multiple important, moving, and unpredictable objects. Where should we fixate in these situations, and where do we? Do we for example appropriately center fixations to manage spatial non-uniformity in our visual system? And do we fixate empty space strategically to gain as much information as possible about multiple objects of interest? We explored these issues in the context of Multiple Object Tracking (MOT), wherein observers track several moving objects (targets) within a larger set of moving objects (nontargets), all the objects physically indistinguishable from one another. Among the features that make MOT an interesting paradigm is that it cannot be accommodated by continuous gaze to one important object, because there are multiple such objects in a given trial. Instead, it demands sustained processing of inputs from an entire display and iterated inferences about target versus nontarget identities. MOT therefore demands a strategic interaction between eye movements and cognition: the observer should seek fixation locations that minimize the aggregate probability of confusing any target with any nontarget. Individuals who meet this fixation challenge should perform the task better than those who meet the challenge less effectively. Here we describe a probabilistic model that implements the basic computations needed to do MOT, estimating the positions of targets, predicting their future positions, and inferring correspondences between new inputs and represented targets. The quality of the input received by the model depends on its fixation location at a given moment. We simulated a group of fifty participants who all performed the same MOT trials, with the model adopting each observer's fixation locations in the respective simulations. The model reliably predicted individual participant tracking performances and their relative rankings within the cohort. The results suggest that an individual's relative capability in this cognitively demanding task is in part determined by his/her utilization of eye fixations to control the quality and relevance of incoming visual input. [Display omitted]</description><subject>Balls</subject><subject>Cognition</subject><subject>Computational modelling</subject><subject>Eye</subject><subject>Eye fixation</subject><subject>Eye movements</subject><subject>Eye tracking</subject><subject>Fixation</subject><subject>Individual differences</subject><subject>Kalman filter</subject><subject>Moving objects</subject><subject>Multiple object tracking</subject><subject>Tracking</subject><subject>Visual system</subject><issn>0010-0277</issn><issn>1873-7838</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkc1u1TAQhS1U1N6WvgJY6oZNLv5L7CyvKqCVKrGBteXY49YhiYOdVO3b43BLF2xY2Tr65szoHIQ-ULKnhDaf-r2N91NYQpz2jLBNFYKqN2hHleSVVFydoB0hlFSESXmGznPuCSGCSXWKzjgrQFvLHdIHPEYHA14ezIKNi_OS8cM6mgn78GS2BRnD0zyYUD5hcuExuNUM2AXvIcFkYZPxuA5LmAfAsevBLnhJxv4M0_079NabIcPly3uBfnz5_P36prr79vX2-nBXWd5wVUnCGkNb13XAXMeYqIXvauJE450kxEtKTeuVoV0LqquNo1YUuWmslGC45Bfo49F3TvHXCnnRY8gWhsFMENesmeCSMikUKejVP2gf1zSV6wrVclW3zR9DeaRsijkn8HpOYTTpWVOitw50r1870FsH-thBmXz_4r92I7jXub-hF-BwBKAE8hgg6WzDlqQLqWSnXQz_XfIblwKc1g</recordid><startdate>202012</startdate><enddate>202012</enddate><creator>Upadhyayula, Aditya</creator><creator>Flombaum, Jonathan</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4999-4037</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202012</creationdate><title>A model that adopts human fixations explains individual differences in multiple object tracking</title><author>Upadhyayula, Aditya ; Flombaum, Jonathan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3638-7026a19dbbe2db22454fb50d46fd700f711a9f8a1b9e8b5ad1c400f66c77ea373</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Balls</topic><topic>Cognition</topic><topic>Computational modelling</topic><topic>Eye</topic><topic>Eye fixation</topic><topic>Eye movements</topic><topic>Eye tracking</topic><topic>Fixation</topic><topic>Individual differences</topic><topic>Kalman filter</topic><topic>Moving objects</topic><topic>Multiple object tracking</topic><topic>Tracking</topic><topic>Visual system</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Upadhyayula, Aditya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Flombaum, Jonathan</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Upadhyayula, Aditya</au><au>Flombaum, Jonathan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A model that adopts human fixations explains individual differences in multiple object tracking</atitle><jtitle>Cognition</jtitle><addtitle>Cognition</addtitle><date>2020-12</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>205</volume><spage>104418</spage><epage>104418</epage><pages>104418-104418</pages><artnum>104418</artnum><issn>0010-0277</issn><eissn>1873-7838</eissn><abstract>In many settings “keep your eye on the ball” is good advice. People fixate important objects to obtain high quality information. Perhaps equally often, however, we engage with multiple important, moving, and unpredictable objects. Where should we fixate in these situations, and where do we? Do we for example appropriately center fixations to manage spatial non-uniformity in our visual system? And do we fixate empty space strategically to gain as much information as possible about multiple objects of interest? We explored these issues in the context of Multiple Object Tracking (MOT), wherein observers track several moving objects (targets) within a larger set of moving objects (nontargets), all the objects physically indistinguishable from one another. Among the features that make MOT an interesting paradigm is that it cannot be accommodated by continuous gaze to one important object, because there are multiple such objects in a given trial. Instead, it demands sustained processing of inputs from an entire display and iterated inferences about target versus nontarget identities. MOT therefore demands a strategic interaction between eye movements and cognition: the observer should seek fixation locations that minimize the aggregate probability of confusing any target with any nontarget. Individuals who meet this fixation challenge should perform the task better than those who meet the challenge less effectively. Here we describe a probabilistic model that implements the basic computations needed to do MOT, estimating the positions of targets, predicting their future positions, and inferring correspondences between new inputs and represented targets. The quality of the input received by the model depends on its fixation location at a given moment. We simulated a group of fifty participants who all performed the same MOT trials, with the model adopting each observer's fixation locations in the respective simulations. The model reliably predicted individual participant tracking performances and their relative rankings within the cohort. The results suggest that an individual's relative capability in this cognitively demanding task is in part determined by his/her utilization of eye fixations to control the quality and relevance of incoming visual input. [Display omitted]</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>32838957</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104418</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4999-4037</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0010-0277
ispartof Cognition, 2020-12, Vol.205, p.104418-104418, Article 104418
issn 0010-0277
1873-7838
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2437127480
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Balls
Cognition
Computational modelling
Eye
Eye fixation
Eye movements
Eye tracking
Fixation
Individual differences
Kalman filter
Moving objects
Multiple object tracking
Tracking
Visual system
title A model that adopts human fixations explains individual differences in multiple object tracking
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T08%3A03%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20model%20that%20adopts%20human%20fixations%20explains%20individual%20differences%20in%20multiple%20object%20tracking&rft.jtitle=Cognition&rft.au=Upadhyayula,%20Aditya&rft.date=2020-12&rft.volume=205&rft.spage=104418&rft.epage=104418&rft.pages=104418-104418&rft.artnum=104418&rft.issn=0010-0277&rft.eissn=1873-7838&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104418&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2437127480%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2493859637&rft_id=info:pmid/32838957&rft_els_id=S0010027720302377&rfr_iscdi=true